A princely state, also called native state (legally, under the
British) or Indian state (for those states on the subcontinent), was a
vassal state[1] under a local or regional ruler in a subsidiary
alliance with the British Raj. Though the history of the princely
states of the subcontinent dates from at least the classical period of
Indian history, the predominant usage of the term princely state
specifically refers to a semi-sovereign principality on the Indian
subcontinent during the
British RajBritish Raj that was not directly governed by
the British, but rather by a local ruler, subject to a form of
indirect rule on some matters; similar political entities also existed
on or in the region of the Arabian Peninsula, in Africa and in Malaya,
and which were similarly recognised under British rule,[2] subject to
a subsidiary alliance and the suzerainty or paramountcy of the British
Crown. Oman, Zanzibar and the
Trucial StatesTrucial States were also under the
Viceroy of India, and were administered by their rulers in the same
manner as the Indian princely states, as part of the Persian Gulf
Residency; they were officially categorised as British protectorates,
with differing degrees of autonomy.
At the time of the British withdrawal, 565 princely states were
officially recognised in the Indian subcontinent,[3] apart from
thousands of taluqdars, zamindaris and jagirs. In 1947, princely
states numbering 555 covered 48% of area of pre-Independent
IndiaIndia and
constituted 28% of its population.[4] The most important states had
their own British Political Residencies: Hyderabad,
MysoreMysore and
TravancoreTravancore in the South followed by Jammu & Kashmir and
SikkimSikkim in
the Himalayas, and
IndoreIndore in Central India. Gun-salutes were often
given for personal distinctions of the ruler rather than the
importance of the state and varied from time to time.[5] The most
prominent among those – roughly a quarter of the total – had the
status of a salute state, one whose ruler was honoured by receiving a
set number of gun salutes on ceremonial occasions, ranging from nine
to 21. Rulers of salute states entitled to a gun salute of eleven guns
and above received from the British the style of His/Her Highness;
while the
NizamNizam of
HyderabadHyderabad had the unique style of His Exalted
Highness.
The princely states varied greatly in status, size, and wealth; the
premier 21-gun salute states of
HyderabadHyderabad and Jammu and Kashmir were
each over 200,000 km2 in size, or slightly larger than the whole
of Great Britain. In 1941,
HyderabadHyderabad had a population of over 16
million, comparable to the population of Romania at the time, while
Jammu and Kashmir had a population of slightly over 4 million,
comparable to that of Switzerland. At the other end of the scale, the
non-salute principality of Lawa covered an area of 49 km2, or
smaller than Bermuda, with a population of just below 3,000. Some two
hundred of the lesser states had an area of less than 25 km2
(10 mi2).[6][7] At the time of Indian independence in 1947,
HyderabadHyderabad had annual revenues of over Rs. 9 crore (roughly £6.75
million/$27.2 million in 1947 values, approximately £240 million/$290
million in 2014 values), and its own army, airline, telecommunication
system, railway, postal system, currency, radio service and a major
public university; the tiny state of Lawa had annual revenues of just
Rs. 28,000 (£2100/$8463 in 1947 values, £73,360/$89,040 in 2014
values).[7][note 1]
The era of the princely states effectively ended with Indian
independence in 1947. By 1950, almost all of the principalities had
acceded to either
IndiaIndia or Pakistan. [8] The accession process was
largely peaceful, except in the cases of Jammu and Kashmir (whose
ruler opted for independence but decided to accede to
IndiaIndia following
an invasion by Pakistan-based forces),[9]
HyderabadHyderabad (whose ruler opted
for total independence in 1947, followed a year later by the police
action and annexation of the state by India),
JunagadhJunagadh (whose ruler
acceded to Pakistan, but was annexed by India).[10]
As per the terms of accession, the erstwhile Indian princes received
privy purses (government allowances), and initially retained their
statuses, privileges, and autonomy in internal matters during a
transitional period which lasted until 1956. During this time, the
former princely states were merged into unions, each of which was
headed by a former ruling prince with the title of Rajpramukh (ruling
chief), equivalent to a state governor.[11] In 1956, the position of
Rajpramukh was abolished and the federations dissolved, the former
principalities becoming part of Indian states. The states which
acceded to Pakistan retained their status until the promulgation of a
new constitution in 1956, when most became part of the province of
West Pakistan; a few of the former states retained their autonomy
until 1969 when they were fully integrated into Pakistan. The Indian
Government formally derecognised the princely families in 1971,
followed by the Government of Pakistan in 1972.

Contents

1 History
2 British relationship with the princely states
3 Princely status and titles
4 Precedence and prestige

8 Burma
9 State military forces
10 Political integration of princely states in 1947 and after

10.1 India
10.2 Pakistan

11 See also
12 Notes
13 References
14 References

14.1 Gazetteers

15 External links

History[edit]
Though principalities and chiefdoms existed on the Indian subcontinent
from at least the Iron Age, the history of princely states on the
Indian subcontinentIndian subcontinent dates to at least the 5th–6th centuries C.E.,
during the rise of the middle kingdoms of
IndiaIndia following the collapse
of the Gupta Empire.[12][13] Many of the future ruling clan groups –
notably the
RajputsRajputs – began to emerge during this period; by the
13th–14th centuries, many of the
RajputRajput clans had firmly established
semi-independent principalities in the north-west, along with several
in the north-east. The widespread expansion of Islam during this time
brought many principalities into tributary relations with Islamic
sultanates, notably the Delhi Sultanate and Bahmani Sultanate. In the
south, however, the
HinduHinduVijayanagara EmpireVijayanagara Empire remained dominant until
the mid-17th century; among its tributaries was the future Mysore
Kingdom.
The Turco-Mongol
Mughal EmpireMughal Empire brought a majority of the existing
Indian kingdoms and principalities under its suzerainty by the 17th
century, beginning with its foundation in the early 16th century. The
advent of
SikhismSikhism resulted in the creation of the
Sikh EmpireSikh Empire in the
north by the early 18th century, by which time the
Mughal EmpireMughal Empire was
in full decline. At the same time, the Marathas carved out their own
states to form the
MarathaMaratha Empire. Through the 18th century, former
Mughal governors formed their own independent states. In the
north-west, some of those – such as Tonk – allied themselves with
various groups, including the Marathas and the Durrani Empire, itself
formed in 1747 from a loose agglomeration of tribal chiefdoms that
composed former Mughal territories. In 1768, Prithvi Narayan Shah,
ruler of a small principality in Gorkha likewise established the
Kingdom of NepalKingdom of Nepal from a federation of small states, expanding its
influence over much of north-eastern India; in the south, the
principalities of
HyderabadHyderabad and Arcot were fully established by the
1760s, though they nominally remained vassals of the Mughal Emperor.
British relationship with the princely states[edit]
IndiaIndia under the
British RajBritish Raj (the "Indian Empire") consisted of two
types of territory:
British IndiaBritish India and the Native states or Princely
states. In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted
the following definitions:

(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and
places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being
governed by Her
Majesty through the
Governor-General of IndiaGovernor-General of India or
through any governor or other officer subordinate to the
Governor-General of India.
(5.) The expression "India" shall mean
British IndiaBritish India together with any
territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her
Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through
any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of
India.[14]

In general the term "British India" had been used (and is still used)
also to refer to the regions under the rule of the East
IndiaIndia Company
in
IndiaIndia from 1774 to 1858.[15][16] The term has also been used to
refer to the "British in India".[citation needed]
The British Crown's suzerainty over 175 princely states, generally the
largest and most important, was exercised in the name of the British
Crown by the central government of
British IndiaBritish India under the Viceroy;
the remaining approximately 400 states were influenced by Agents
answerable to the provincial governments of
British IndiaBritish India under a
Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or Chief Commissioner.[17] A clear
distinction between "dominion" and "suzerainty" was supplied by the
jurisdiction of the courts of law: the law of
British IndiaBritish India rested
upon the legislation enacted by the British Parliament, and the
legislative powers those laws vested in the various governments of
British India, both central and local; in contrast, the courts of the
princely states existed under the authority of the respective rulers
of those states.[17]
Princely status and titles[edit]

The Indian rulers bore various titles – including Chhatrapati
(exclusively used by the 3
BhonsleBhonsle dynasty of the Marathas)
("emperor"),
MaharajaMaharaja or
RajaRaja ("king"), Sultan, Raje, Nizam, Wadiyar
(by the Maharajas of Mysore), Agniraj Maharaj for the rulers of
Bhaddaiyan Raj,
NawabNawab ("governor"), Nayak, Wāli, Inamdar,[18]
Saranjamdar[19] and many others. Whatever the literal meaning and
traditional prestige of the ruler's actual title, the British
government translated them all as "prince," to avoid the implication
that the native rulers could be "kings" with status equal to that of
the British monarch.

More prestigious
HinduHindu rulers (mostly existing before the Mughal
Empire, or having split from such old states) often used the title
"Raja,"Raje" or a variant such as Rai, "Rana," "Rao," "Rawat" or
Rawal. Also in this 'class' were several Thakurs or Thai ores and a
few particular titles, such as Sardar,
Mankari (or Mānkari/Maankari),
Deshmukh, Sar Desai,
RajaRaja Inamdar, Saranjamdar.
The most prestigious
HinduHindu rulers usually had the prefix "maha"
("great", compare for example Grand Duke) in their titles, as in
Maharaja, Maharana, Maharao, etc. The states of
TravancoreTravancore and Cochin
had queens regnant styled Maharani, generally the female forms applied
only to sisters, spouses and widows, who could however act as regents.
There were also compound titles, such as (Maha)rajadhiraj,
Raj-i-rajgan, often relics from an elaborate system of hierarchical
titles under the Mughal emperors. For example, the addition of the
adjective Bahadur raised the status of the titleholder one level.
Furthermore, most dynasties used a variety of additional titles, such
as Varma in South India. This should not be confused with various
titles and suffixes not specific to princes but used by entire
(sub)castes.
The
SikhSikh princes concentrated at Punjab usually adopted
HinduHindu type
titles when attaining princely rank; at a lower level
SardarSardar was used.
MuslimMuslim rulers almost all used the title "Nawab" (the Arabic honorific
of naib, "deputy," used of the Mughal governors, who became de facto
autonomous with the decline of the Mughal Empire), with the prominent
exceptions of the
NizamNizam of
HyderabadHyderabad & Berar, the Wāli/Khan of
Kalat and the
WāliWāli of Swat. Other less usual titles included Darbar
Sahib, Dewan, Jam, Mehtar (unique to Chitral) and Mir (from Emir).
Precedence and prestige[edit]
However, the actual importance of a princely state cannot be read from
the title of its ruler, which was usually granted (or at least
recognised) as a favour, often in recognition for loyalty and services
rendered to the Mughal Empire. Although some titles were raised once
or even repeatedly, there was no automatic updating when a state
gained or lost real power. In fact, princely titles were even awarded
to holders of domains (mainly jagirs) and even taluqars and zamindars
(tax collectors), which were not states at all. Various sources give
significantly different numbers of states and domains of the various
types. Even in general, the definition of titles and domains are
clearly not well-established.

An 1895 group photograph of the eleven-year-old Krishnaraja Wadiyar
IV, ruler of the princely state of
MysoreMysore in South India, with his
brothers and sisters. In 1799, his grandfather, then aged five, had
been granted dominion of
MysoreMysore by the British and forced into a
subsidiary alliance. The British later directly governed the state
between 1831 and 1881.

The Govindgarh Palace of the
MaharajaMaharaja of Rewa. The palace which was
built as a hunting lodge later became famous for the first white
tigers that were found in the adjacent jungle and raised in the palace
zoo.

The
NawabNawab of
JunagadhJunagadh Bahadur Khan III (seated centre in an ornate
chair) shown in an 1885 photograph with state officials and family.

Photograph (1900) of the
MaharaniMaharani of Sikkim.
SikkimSikkim was under the
suzerainty of the Provincial government of Bengal; its ruler received
a 15-gun salute.

In addition to their titles all princely rulers were eligible to be
appointed to certain British orders of chivalry associated with India,
the Most Exalted
Order of the Star of IndiaOrder of the Star of India and the Most Eminent Order
of the Indian Empire. Women could be appointed as "Knights" (instead
of Dames) of these orders. Rulers entitled to 21-gun and 19-gun
salutes were normally appointed to the highest rank, Knight Grand
Commander of the Order of the Star of India.
Many Indian princes served in the British Army, the Indian Army, or in
local guard or police forces, often rising to high ranks; some even
served while on the throne. Many of these were appointed as an Aide de
camp, either to the ruling prince of their own house (in the case of
relatives of such rulers) or indeed to the British King-Emperor. Many
saw active service, both on the subcontinent and on other fronts,
during both World Wars.
Apart from those members of the princely houses who entered military
service and who distinguished themselves, a good number of princes
received honorary ranks as officers in the British and Indian Armed
Forces. Those ranks were conferred based on several factors, including
their heritage, lineage, gun-salute (or lack of one) as well as
personal character or martial traditions. After the First and Second
World Wars, the princely rulers of several of the major states,
including Gwalior, Patiala, Bikaner, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Jammu and
Kashmir and Hyderabad, were given honorary general officer ranks as a
result of their states' contributions to the war effort.

Lieutenant/Captain/Flight Lieutenant or
Lieutenant-Commander/Major/Squadron Leader (for junior members of
princely houses or for minor princes)
Commander/Lieutenant-Colonel/Wing Commander or Captain/Colonel/Group
Captain (granted to princes of salute states, often to those entitled
to 15-guns or more)
Commodore/Brigadier/Air Commodore (conferred upon princes of salute
states entitled to gun salutes of 15-guns or more)
Major-General/Air Vice-Marshal (conferred upon princes of salute
states entitled to 15-guns or more; conferred upon rulers of the major
princely states, including Baroda, Kapurthala, Travancore, Bhopal and
Mysore)
Lieutenant-General (conferred upon the rulers of the largest and most
prominent princely houses after the First and Second World Wars for
their states' contributions to the war effort.)
General (very rarely awarded; the Maharajas of
GwaliorGwalior and Jammu &
Kashmir were created honorary Generals in the
British ArmyBritish Army in 1877,
the
MaharajaMaharaja of Bikaner was made one in 1937, and the
NizamNizam of
HyderabadHyderabad in 1941)[20]

It was also not unusual for members of princely houses to be appointed
to various colonial offices, often far from their native state, or to
enter the diplomatic corps.
Salute states[edit]
Main article: Salute state
The gun salute system was used to set unambiguously the precedence of
the major rulers in the area in which the British East
IndiaIndia Company
was active, or generally of the states and their dynasties. As heads
of a state, certain princely rulers were entitled to be saluted by the
firing of an odd number of guns between three and 21, with a greater
number of guns indicating greater prestige. Generally, the number of
guns remained the same for all successive rulers of a particular
state, but individual princes were sometimes granted additional guns
on a personal basis. Furthermore, rulers were sometimes granted
additional gun salutes within their own territories only, constituting
a semi-promotion. The states of all these rulers (about 120) were
known as salute states.
After Indian Independence, the
Maharana of Udaipur displaced the Nizam
of
HyderabadHyderabad as the most senior prince in India, because Hyderabad
State had not acceded to the new Dominion of India, and the style
Highness was extended to all rulers entitled to 9-gun salutes. When
the princely states had been integrated into the
Indian UnionIndian Union their
rulers were promised continued privileges and an income (known as the
Privy Purse) for their upkeep. Subsequently, when the Indian
government abolished the Privy Purse in 1971, the whole princely order
ceased to be recognised under Indian law, although many families
continue to retain their social prestige informally; some descendants
of the rulers are still prominent in regional or national politics,
diplomacy, business and high society.
At the time of Indian independence, only five rulers – the
NizamNizam of
Hyderabad, the
MaharajaMaharaja of Mysore, the
MaharajaMaharaja of Jammu and Kashmir
state, the
MaharajaMaharajaGaekwadGaekwad of Baroda and the
MaharajaMaharajaScindiaScindia of
GwaliorGwalior – were entitled to a 21-gun salute. Five more – the Nawab
of Bhopal, the
MaharajaMaharajaHolkarHolkar of Indore, the
Maharana of Udaipur, the
MaharajaMaharaja of Kolhapur and the
MaharajaMaharaja of
TravancoreTravancore – were entitled
to 19-gun salutes. The most senior princely ruler was the
NizamNizam of
Hyderabad, who was entitled to the unique style Exalted Highness.
Other princely rulers entitled to salutes of 11 guns (soon 9 guns too)
or more were entitled to the style Highness. No special style was used
by rulers entitled to lesser gun salutes.
As paramount ruler, and successor to the Mughals, the British
King-EmperorKing-Emperor of India, for whom the style of
Majesty was reserved, was
entitled to an 'imperial' 101-gun salute—in the European tradition
also the number of guns fired to announce the birth of an heir (male)
to the throne.
Non salute states[edit]
There was no strict correlation between the levels of the titles and
the classes of gun salutes, the real measure of precedence, but merely
a growing percentage of higher titles in classes with more guns. As a
rule the majority of gun-salute princes had at least nine, with
numbers below that usually the prerogative of Arab Sheikhs of the Aden
protectorate, also under British protection.
There were many so-called non-salute states of lower prestige. Since
the total of salute states was 117 and there were more than 500
princely states, most rulers were not entitled to any gun salute. Not
all of these were minor rulers – Surguja State, for example, was
both larger and more populous than Karauli State, but the
MaharajaMaharaja of
Karauli was entitled to a 17-gun salute and the
MaharajaMaharaja of Surguja
was not entitled to any gun salute at all.
A number of princes, in the broadest sense of the term, were not even
acknowledged as such.[example needed] On the other hand, the dynasties
of certain defunct states were allowed to keep their princely status
– they were known as political pensioners, such as the
NawabNawab of
Oudh. There were also certain estates of
British IndiaBritish India which were
rendered as political saranjams, having equal princely status.[21]
Though none of these princes were awarded gun salutes, princely titles
in this category were recognised as a form of vassals of salute
states, and were not even in direct relation with the paramount power.
Doctrine of lapse[edit]
Main article: Doctrine of lapse
A controversial aspect of
East India CompanyEast India Company rule was the doctrine of
lapse, a policy under which lands whose feudal ruler died (or
otherwise became unfit to rule) without a male biological heir (as
opposed to an adopted son) would become directly controlled by the
Company and an adopted son would not become the ruler of the princely
state. This policy went counter to Indian tradition where, unlike
Europe, it was far more the accepted norm for a ruler to appoint his
own heir.
The doctrine of lapse was pursued most vigorously by the
Governor-General Sir James Ramsay, 10th Earl (later 1st Marquess) of
Dalhousie. Dalhousie annexed seven states, including
AwadhAwadh (Oudh),
whose Nawabs he had accused of misrule, and the
MarathaMaratha states of
Nagpur,
JhansiJhansi and Satara and
SambalpurSambalpur and Thanjavur. Resentment over
the annexation of these states turned to indignation when the
heirlooms of the Maharajas of
NagpurNagpur were auctioned off in Calcutta.
Dalhousie's actions contributed to the rising discontent amongst the
upper castes which played a large part in the outbreak of the Indian
mutiny of 1857. The last Mughal Badshah (emperor), whom many of the
mutineers saw as a figurehead to rally around, was deposed following
its suppression.
In response to the unpopularity of the doctrine, it was discontinued
with the end of Company rule and the British Parliament's assumption
of direct power over India.
Imperial governance[edit]
Main articles:
Agencies of British IndiaAgencies of British India and Residencies of British
India

By treaty, the British controlled the external affairs of the princely
states absolutely. As the states were not British possessions, they
retained control over their own internal affairs, subject to a degree
of British influence which in many states was substantial.
By the beginning of the 20th century, relations between the British
and the four largest states – Hyderabad, Mysore, Jammu and Kashmir,
and Baroda – were directly under the control of the Governor-General
of India, in the person of a British Resident. Two agencies, for
RajputanaRajputana and Central India, oversaw twenty and 148 princely states
respectively. The remaining princely states had their own British
political officers, or Agents, who answered to the administrators of
India's provinces. The Agents of five princely states were then under
the authority of Madras, 354 under Bombay, 26 of Bengal, two under
Assam, 34 under Punjab, fifteen under
Central Provinces and BerarCentral Provinces and Berar and
two under United Provinces.

The
Chamber of PrincesChamber of Princes (Narender Mandal or Narendra Mandal) was an
institution established in 1920 by a
Royal ProclamationRoyal Proclamation of the
King-EmperorKing-Emperor to provide a forum in which the rulers could voice their
needs and aspirations to the government. It survived until the end of
the
British RajBritish Raj in 1947.[22]
By the early 1930s, most of the princely states whose Agencies were
under the authority of India's provinces were organised into new
Agencies, answerable directly to the Governor-general, on the model of
the Central
IndiaIndia and
RajputanaRajputana agencies: the Eastern States Agency,
Punjab States Agency, Baluchistan Agency, Deccan States Agency, Madras
States Agency and the Northwest Frontier States Agency. The Baroda
Residency was combined with the princely states of northern Bombay
Presidency into the Baroda, Western
IndiaIndia and Gujarat States Agency.
GwaliorGwalior was separated from the
Central India AgencyCentral India Agency and given its own
Resident, and the states of Rampur and Benares, formerly with Agents
under the authority of the United Provinces, were placed under the
Gwalior ResidencyGwalior Residency in 1936. The princely states of Sandur and
BanganapalleBanganapalle in
MysoreMysore Presidency were transferred to the agency of
the
MysoreMysore Resident in 1939.
Principal princely states in 1947[edit]
The native states in 1947 included five large states that were in
"direct political relations" with the Government of India. For the
complete list of princely states in 1947, see List of princely states
of India.
In direct relations with the Central Government[edit]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Two states under the suzerainty of the Resident at Gwalior, Gwalior
having direct relations with the central government.[23][30]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Please expand to view the tables for other states under Provincial
Governments

Madras (5 States)

5 States under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of
Madras[33]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1901
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand) Rupees
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

354 states under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of
Bombay[36]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1901
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

15 States under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of the
Central Provinces[37]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1901
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

45 states under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of the
Punjab[38][39]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the State (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

26 States under the suzerainty of the Provincial Government of
Assam[40][41]

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1941
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

Name of Princely state
Area in square miles
Population in 1901
Approximate revenue of the state (in hundred thousand Rupees)
Title, ethnicity, and religion of ruler
Gun-Salute for ruler
Designation of local political officer

State military forces[edit]
See article: Indian State Forces
The armies of the
Native StatesNative States were bound by many restrictions that
were imposed by subsidiary alliances. They existed mainly for
ceremonial use and for internal policing, although certain units
designated as Imperial Service Troops, were available for service
alongside the regular Indian Army upon request by the British
government.[43]
According to the Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, p. 85,

Since a chief can neither attack his neighbour nor fall out with a
foreign nation, it follows that he needs no military establishment
which is not required either for police purposes or personal display,
or for cooperation with the Imperial Government. The treaty made with
GwaliorGwalior in 1844, and the instrument of transfer given to
MysoreMysore in
1881, alike base the restriction of the forces of the State upon the
broad ground of protection. The former explained in detail that
unnecessary armies were embarrassing to the State itself and the cause
of disquietude to others: a few months later a striking proof of this
was afforded by the army of the
SikhSikh kingdom of Lahore. The British
Government has undertaken to protect the dominions of the Native
princes from invasion and even from rebellion within: its army is
organised for the defence not merely of British India, but of all the
possessions under the suzerainty of the King-Emperor.[44]

In addition, other restrictions were imposed:

The treaties with most of the larger States are clear on this point.
Posts in the interior must not be fortified, factories for the
production of guns and ammunition must not be constructed, nor may the
subject of other States be enlisted in the local forces. ... They must
allow the forces that defend them to obtain local supplies, to occupy
cantonments or positions, and to arrest deserters; and in addition to
these services they must recognise the Imperial control of the
railways, telegraphs, and postal communications as essential not only
to the common welfare but to the common defence.[45]

The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with India
and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve
this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new
article, as appropriate. (February 2014) (Learn how and when to remove
this template message)

The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with
Pakistan and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may
improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a
new article, as appropriate. (June 2017) (Learn how and when to remove
this template message)

India[edit]
At the time of Indian independence in August 1947,
IndiaIndia was divided
into two sets of territories, the first being the territories of
"British India," which were under the direct control of the India
Office in London and the Governor-General of India, and the second
being the "Princely states," the territories over which the Crown had
suzerainty, but which were under the control of their hereditary
rulers. In addition, there were several colonial enclaves controlled
by France and Portugal. The integration of these territories into
Dominion of India, that had been created by the Indian Independence
Act 1947 by the British parliament, was a declared objective of the
Indian National Congress, which the Government of
IndiaIndia pursued over
the years 1947 to 1949. Through a combination of tactics, Sardar
Vallabhbhai PatelVallabhbhai Patel and
V. P. MenonV. P. Menon in the months immediately preceding
and following the independence convinced the rulers of almost all of
the hundreds of princely states to accede to India. In a speech in
January 1948,
Vallabhbhai PatelVallabhbhai Patel said:

As you are all aware, on the lapse of
Paramountcy every Indian State
became a separate independent entity and our first task of
consolidating about 550 States was on the basis of accession to the
Indian Dominion on three subjects. Barring
HyderabadHyderabad and
JunagadhJunagadh all
the states which are contiguous to
IndiaIndia acceded to Indian Dominion.
Subsequently, Kashmir also came in... Some Rulers who were quick to
read the writing on the wall, gave responsible government to their
people;
CochinCochin being the most illustrious example. In Travancore,
there was a short struggle, but there, too, the Ruler soon recognised
the aspiration of his people and agreed to introduce a constitution in
which all powers would be transferred to the people and he would
function as a constitutional Ruler.[47]

Although this process successfully integrated the vast majority of
princely states into India, it was not as successful in relation to a
few states, notably the former princely state of Kashmir, whose
MaharajaMaharaja delayed signing the instrument of accession into
IndiaIndia until
his territories were under the threat of invasion by Pakistan, the
state of Hyderabad, whose ruler decided to remain independent and was
subsequently defeated by the
Operation PoloOperation Polo invasion, and the states
of Tripura and Manipur, whose rulers agreed to accession only in late
1949, after the Indian conquest of Hyderabad.
Having secured their accession,
SardarSardar Patel and
V. P. MenonV. P. Menon then
proceeded, in a step-by-step process, to secure and extend the central
government's authority over these states and to transform their
administrations until, by 1956, there was little difference between
the territories that had formerly been part of
British IndiaBritish India and those
that had been princely states. Simultaneously, the Government of
India, through a combination of diplomatic and military means,
acquired control over the remaining European colonial enclaves, such
as Goa, which were also integrated into India.
As the final step, in 1971, the 26th amendment[48] to the Constitution
of
IndiaIndia withdrew official recognition of all official symbols of
princely India, including titles and privileges, and abolished the
remuneration of the princes by privy purses. As a result, even titular
heads of the former princely states ceased to exist.[49]
Pakistan[edit]
During the period of the British Raj, there were four princely states
in Balochistan: Makran, Kharan, Las Bela and Kalat. The first three
acceded to Pakistan.[50][51][52][53] However, the ruler of the fourth
princely state, the
Khan of KalatKhan of Kalat Ahmad Yar Khan, declared Kalat's
independence as this was one of the options given to all princely
states.[54] The state remained independent until it was acceded on 27
March 1948. The signing of the
Instrument of AccessionInstrument of Accession by Ahmad Yar
Khan, led his brother, Prince Abdul Karim, to revolt against his
brother's decision in July 1948, causing an ongoing and still
unresolved insurgency.[55]
Bahawalpur from the Punjab Agency joined Pakistan on 5 October 1947.
The
Princely statesPrincely states of the North-West Frontier States Agencies.
included the Dir Swat and Chitral Agency and the Deputy Commissioner
of Hazara acting as the Political Agent for Amb and Phulra. These
states joined Pakistan on independence from the British.[citation
needed]
See also[edit]

^ Values are from the last imperial Indian census in 1941. Until 1966,
when
IndiaIndia left the British sterling area, the Indian rupee was pegged
to the British pound sterling and had a value of 1s. 6d (1 shilling
and 6d., equal to 18 old pence). The pre-decimal pound was subdivided
into 20s. (shillings) and valued at $4.03 in 1947. One shilling was
therefore worth $0.20 U.S., so a rupee was worth $0.30 U.S. In 1947,
1s. 6d had an estimated purchasing power of £2.62 in 2014, while
$0.30 in 1947 had an estimated purchasing power of $3.18 (in 2014
values).(Schedule of Par Values, Currencies of Metropolitan Areas, The
Statesman's Year Book 1947, pg xxiii, Macmillan & Co.;
measuringworth.com)

References[edit]

^ Ramusack 2004, pp. 85 Quote: "The British did not create the
Indian princes. Before and during the European penetration of India,
indigenous rulers achieved dominance through the military protection
they provided to dependents and their skill in acquiring revenues to
maintain their military and administrative organisations. Major Indian
rulers exercised varying degrees and types of sovereign powers before
they entered treaty relations with the British. What changed during
the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries is that the British
increasingly restricted the sovereignty of Indian rulers. The Company
set boundaries; it extracted resources in the form of military
personnel, subsidies or tribute payments, and the purchase of
commercial goods at favourable prices, and limited opportunities for
other alliances. From the 1810s onwards as the British expanded and
consolidated their power, their centralised military despotism
dramatically reduced the political options of Indian rulers." (p. 85)
^ Ramusack 2004, p. 87 Quote: "The British system of indirect
rule over Indian states ... provided a model for the efficient use of
scarce monetary and personnel resources that could be adopted to
imperial acquisitions in Malaya and Africa. (p. 87)"
^ http://www.worldstatesmen.org/India_princes_A-J.html
^ "Who betrayed
SardarSardar Patel?".
^ Coen, Sir Terence Bernard Creagh, KBE, CIE. The Indian Political
Service: A Study in Indirect Rule. London: Chatto & Windus, 1971
^ Markovits, Claude (2004). A history of modern India, 1480–1950.
Anthem Press. pp. 386–409.
^ a b The
IndiaIndia Office and Burma Office List: 1945. Harrison &
Sons, Ltd. 1945. pp. 33–37.
^ Ravi Kumar Pillai of Kandamath in the Journal of the Royal Society
for Asian Affairs, pages 316–319
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2016.1171621
^ Bajwa, Kuldip Singh (2003). Jammu and Kashmir War, 1947–1948:
Political and Military Perspectiv. New Delhi: Hari-Anand Publications
Limited.
p. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7bREjE5yXNMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA21&dq=dogra+1948+tribal+pakistan+invasion&ots=B8Ib4XPpLr&sig=y_lQsLt4gQB-c32WiCgbnb7ZNh8#v=onepage&q=dogra%201948%20tribal%20pakistan%20invasion&f=false.
^ Aparna Pande (16 March 2011). Explaining Pakistan’s Foreign
Policy: Escaping India. Taylor & Francis. pp. 31–.
ISBN 978-1-136-81893-6.
^ Wilhelm von Pochhammer, India's road to nationhood: a political
history of the subcontinent (1981) ch 57
^ Agarwal, Ashvini (1989). Rise and Fall of the Imperial Guptas,
Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-0592-5, pp.264–9
^ Grousset, Rene (1970). The Empire of the Steppes. Rutgers University
Press. p. 69. ISBN 0-8135-1304-9.
^
Interpretation Act 1889Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 18
^ 1. Imperial Gazetteer of India, volume IV, published under the
authority of the Secretary of State for India-in-Council, 1909, Oxford
University Press. page 5. Quote: "The history of
British IndiaBritish India falls,
as observed by Sir C. P. Ilbert in his Government of India, into three
periods. From the beginning of the seventeenth century to the middle
of the eighteenth century the
East India CompanyEast India Company is a trading
corporation, existing on the sufferance of the native powers and in
rivalry with the merchant companies of Holland and France. During the
next century the Company acquires and consolidates its dominion,
shares its sovereignty in increasing proportions with the Crown, and
gradually loses its mercantile privileges and functions. After the
mutiny of 1857 the remaining powers of the Company are transferred to
the Crown, and then follows an era of peace in which
IndiaIndia awakens to
new life and progress." 2. The Statutes: From the Twentieth Year of
King Henry the Third to the ... by Robert Harry Drayton, Statutes of
the Realm – Law – 1770 Page 211 (3) "Save as otherwise expressly
provided in this Act, the law of
British IndiaBritish India and of the several
parts thereof existing immediately before the appointed ..." 3. Edney,
M. E. (1997) Mapping an Empire: The Geographical Construction of
British India, 1765–1843[permanent dead link], University of Chicago
Press. 480 pages. ISBN 978-0-226-18488-3 4. Hawes, C.J. (1996)
Poor Relations: The Making of a Eurasian Community in British India,
1773–1833. Routledge, 217 pages. ISBN 0-7007-0425-6.
^ Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. II 1908, pp. 463, 470 Quote1:
"Before passing on to the political history of British India, which
properly begins with the Anglo-French Wars in the Carnatic, ... (p.
463)" Quote2: "The political history of the British in
IndiaIndia begins in
the eighteenth century with the French Wars in the Carnatic. (p.471)"
^ a b Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, p. 60
^ Great Britain. Indian Statutory Commission; Viscount John Allsebrook
Simon Simon (1930). Report of the Indian Statutory Commission ... H.M.
Stationery Office. Retrieved 9 June 2012.
^ All
IndiaIndia reporter. D.V. Chitaley. 1938. Retrieved 9 June
2012.
^ Royalark.net: "Salute States"
^ Govindlal Dalsukhbhai Patel (1957). The land problem of reorganized
Bombay state. N. M. Tripathi. Retrieved 9 June 2012.
^ Vapal Pangunni Menon (1956) The Story of the Integration of the
Indian States, Macmillan Co., pp. 17–19
^ a b Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, p. 92
^ "Mysore," Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book
1947, pg 173, Macmillan & Co.
^ "Jammu and Kashmir," Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's
Year Book 1947, pg 171, Macmillan & Co.
^ "Hyderabad," Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book
1947, pg 170, Macmillan & Co.
^ a b Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, p. 93
^ "Central
IndiaIndia Agency," Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's
Year Book 1947, pg 168, Macmillan & Co.
^ "Eastern States," Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year
Book 1947, pg 168, Macmillan & Co.
^ "
GwaliorGwalior Residency,", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's
Year Book 1947, pg 170, Macmillan & Co.
^ Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, pp. 94–95
^ "Rajputana," Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book
1947, pg 175, Macmillan & Co.
^ a b Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, p. 96
^ "Baluchistan States," Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's
Year Book 1947, pg 160, Macmillan & Co.
^ "Sikkim," Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year Book
1947, pg 175, Macmillan & Co.
^ Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, p. 97
^ Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, p. 102
^ Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, p. 100
^ "Punjab States,", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year
Book 1947, pg 174, Macmillan & Co.
^ Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, p. 103
^ "
AssamAssam States,", Indian States and Agencies, The Statesman's Year
Book 1947, pg 160, Macmillan & Co.
^ Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, p. 101
^ Lt. Gen. Sir George MacMunn, page 198 "The Armies of India",
ISBN 0-947554-02-5
^ Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, p. 85
^ Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, pp. 85–86
^ a b Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV 1907, p. 87
^ R. P. Bhargava (1992) The Chamber of Princes, p. 313
^ "The Constitution (26 Amendment) Act, 1971", indiacode.nic.in,
Government of India, 1971, retrieved 9 November 2011
^ 1. Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states.
Cambridge University Press. p. 278. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4.
Retrieved 6 November 2011. , "Through a constitutional amendment
passed in 1971, Indira Gandhi stripped the princes of the titles,
privy purses and regal privileges which her father's government had
granted." (p 278). 2. Naipaul, V. S. (8 April 2003), India: A Wounded
Civilisation, Random House Digital, Inc., pp. 37–,
ISBN 978-1-4000-3075-0, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote:
"The princes of
IndiaIndia – their number and variety reflecting to a
large extent the chaos that had come to the country with the break up
of the Mughal empire – had lost real power in the British time.
Through generations of idle servitude they had grown to specialise
only in style. A bogus, extinguishable glamour: in 1947, with
Independence, they had lost their state, and Mrs. Gandhi in 1971 had,
without much public outcry, abolished their privy purses and titles."
(pp 37–38). 3. Schmidt, Karl J. (1995), An atlas and survey of South
Asian history, M.E. Sharpe, p. 78, ISBN 978-1-56324-334-9,
retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Although the Indian states
were alternately requested or forced into union with either
IndiaIndia or
Pakistan, the real death of princely
IndiaIndia came when the Twenty-sixth
Amendment Act (1971) abolished the princes' titles, privileges, and
privy purses." (page 78). 4. Breckenridge, Carol Appadurai (1995),
Consuming modernity: public culture in a South Asian world, U of
Minnesota Press, pp. 84–, ISBN 978-0-8166-2306-8,
retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "The third stage in the
political evolution of the princes from rulers to citizens occurred in
1971, when the constitution ceased to recognise them as princes and
their privy purses, titles, and special privileges were abolished."
(page 84). 5. Guha, Ramachandra (5 August 2008),
IndiaIndia After Gandhi:
The History of the World's Largest Democracy, HarperCollins,
pp. 441–, ISBN 978-0-06-095858-9, retrieved 6 November
2011 Quote: "Her success at the polls emboldened Mrs. Gandhi to
act decisively against the princes. Through 1971, the two sides tried
and failed to find a settlement. The princes were willing to forgo
their privy purses, but hoped at least to save their titles. But with
her overwhelming majority in Parliament, the prime minister had no
need to compromise. On 2 December she introduced a bill to amend the
constitution and abolish all princely privileges. It was passed in the
Lok Sabha by 381 votes to six, and in the Rajya Sabha by 167 votes to
seven. In her own speech, the prime minister invited 'the princes to
join the elite of the modern age, the elite which earns respect by its
talent, energy and contribution to human progress, all of which can
only be done when we work together as equals without regarding anybody
as of special status.' " (page 441). 6. Cheesman, David (1997).
Landlord power and rural indebtedness in colonial Sind, 1865–1901.
London: Routledge. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-7007-0470-5.
Retrieved 6 November 2011. Quote: "The Indian princes survived
the
British RajBritish Raj by only a few years. The Indian republic stripped them
of their powers and then their titles." (page 10). 7. Merriam-Webster,
Inc (1997), Merriam-Webster's geographical dictionary,
Merriam-Webster, pp. 520–, ISBN 978-0-87779-546-9,
retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Various (formerly)
semi-independent areas in
IndiaIndia ruled by native princes .... Under
British rule ... administered by residents assisted by political
agents. Titles and remaining privileges of princes abolished by Indian
government 1971." (page 520). 8. Ward, Philip (September 1989),
Northern India, Rajasthan, Agra, Delhi: a travel guide, Pelican
Publishing, pp. 91–, ISBN 978-0-88289-753-0, retrieved 6
November 2011 Quote: "A monarchy is only as good as the reigning
monarch: thus it is with the princely states. Once they seemed
immutable, invincible. In 1971 they were "derecognised," their
privileges, privy purses and titles all abolished at a stroke" (page
91)
^ Pervaiz I Cheema; Manuel Riemer (22 August 1990). Pakistan's Defence
Policy 1947–58.
Palgrave MacmillanPalgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 60–.
ISBN 978-1-349-20942-2.
^ Farhan Hanif Siddiqi (2012). The Politics of Ethnicity in Pakistan:
The Baloch, Sindhi and Mohajir Ethnic Movements. Routledge.
pp. 71–. ISBN 978-0-415-68614-3.
^ T.V. Paul (February 2014). The Warrior State: Pakistan in the
Contemporary World. OUP USA. pp. 133–.
ISBN 978-0-19-932223-7.
^ Bangash, Y. K. (2015), "Constructing the state: Constitutional
integration of the princely states of Pakistan", in Roger D. Long;
Gurharpal Singh; Yunas Samad; Ian Talbot, State and Nation-Building in
Pakistan: Beyond Islam and Security, Routledge, pp. 82–,
ISBN 978-1-317-44820-4
^ Nicholas Schmidle (2 March 2010). To Live or to Perish Forever: Two
Tumultuous Years in Pakistan. Henry Holt and Company. pp. 86–.
ISBN 978-1-4299-8590-1.
^ Syed Farooq Hasnat (26 May 2011). Global Security Watch—Pakistan.
ABC-CLIO. pp. 94–. ISBN 978-0-313-34698-9.

Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. II (1908), The Indian Empire,
Historical, Published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary
of State for
IndiaIndia in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp.
xxxv, 1 map, 573. online
Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. III (1907), The Indian Empire,
Economic (Chapter X: Famine, pp. 475–502, Published under the
authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for
IndiaIndia in Council,
Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp. xxxvi, 1 map, 520. online
Imperial Gazetteer of
IndiaIndia vol. IV (1907), The Indian Empire,
Administrative, Published under the authority of His Majesty's
Secretary of State for
IndiaIndia in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon
Press. Pp. xxx, 1 map, 552. online

Indian
Princely statesPrincely states and their History and detailed Genealogy –
Royalark
Sir
Roper Lethbridge (1893). The Golden Book of India: A Genealogical
and Biographical Dictionary of the Ruling Princes, Chiefs, Nobles, and
Other Personages, Titled or Decorated, of the Indian Empire (Full
text). Macmillan And Co., New York.
Exhaustive lists of rulers and heads of government, and some
biographies.